The court clarified that intention to kill is pivotal in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide, confirming conviction under Section 304 Part II given absence of intent despite a fatal act.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.50 of 2021, dated 07.02.2023, on the file of the learned Principal and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, thereby convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the accused were friends. The deceased was an operator of a JCB, and the accused used to work with him. On 30.07.2020, at about 10.30 a.m., while the accused was having his breakfast at Hotel Sumaiah Amma, the deceased arrived and teased the accused, asking if he would buy borota for him. This led to a worsening of the enmity between them. Later on the same day, at about 02.30 p.m., when the deceased was resting in the veranda of a building located on the north side of the Government High School at Chozhandhur, the accused struck the deceased's head with a granite stone with the intention to kill him. As a result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

3. On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.226 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court. The Trial Court framed charges as against the accused for the offence punishable under of I.P.C.

4. On the side of the prosecution, in order to bring the charges to home, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.6. On the side of the appellant, he had examined D.W.1 and marked Ex.D.1 before the Trial Court.

5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire conviction is based on the evidence of eyewitnesses P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.12, as well as a confession that led to the recovery of clothes containing blood stains. However, the confession statement and the discovery of facts resulting from it cannot, by themselves, be the determining factor in concluding the guilt of the accused. The presence of blood stains, especially human blood, without grouping, does not provide sufficient grounds to convict the accused in a murder case. Furthermore, the credibility of the so-called eyewitnesses is highly doubtful, as their testimonies are not consistent and are contradictory to each other. The respondent also brought a sniffer dog to trace the missing accused. However, since P.W.1 to P.W.4 were eyewitnesses, there was no need to use a sniffer dog to trace the accused. The Trial Court failed to consider the defence witness, a medical officer, who testified that the accused had undergone a psychotic check-up from 13.10.2020 to 24.12.2020. The accused was diagnosed with chronic resistant schizophrenia. Moreover, on the date of the alleged incident, there was only a verbal quarrel between the deceased and the accused, and the accused had no intention or motive to do away with the life of the deceased. Despite this, the Trial Court mechanically convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that t